Lisa Dusseault wrote:
The issue was initially raised by Frank
Hi, a short explanation, initially I hoped that 4234 can be
promoted to STD "as is". I missed the (now listed) errata
in the "pending errata mbox".
Some months later 4234bis-00 was posted, and if 4234 can't
be promoted as is, then that's an opportunity to address
this (known) LWSP issue.
Just removing it is an idea, but for the reasons stated by
Dave I felt that "just deprecating it" is good enough with
less undesirable side-effects.
After all it's simple to implement LWSP as specified. But
unfortunately it's also simple to destroy critical white
space in an apparently empty line.
Sorry for the confusion, I should have checked the pending
errata mbox before the proposal to promote RFC 4234 to STD.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html